MARIANO AVILA and MAGDALENA AVILA, petitioners,
vs. HON. LAURO L. TAPUCAR, Presiding Judge, Branch 1,
Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City,
JULITO BAHAN, CRISTINA BAHAN PANIS, LUCITA CARTERA,
BOY CARTERA and CANDELARIA BAHAN MENDOZA,
respondents. August 27, 1991
DOCTRINE:
It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that while land
registration is a proceeding in rem and binds the whole
world, the simple possession of a certificate of title under
the Torrens Systems does not necessarily make the holder a
true owner of all the property described therein. If a person
obtains a title under the Torrens system which includes by
mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered
under the system, he does not, by virtue of the said
certificate alone, become the owner of the lands illegally
included.
In registration proceedings, a cadastral court has no
authority to award a property in favor of persons who have
not put in any claims to it and have never asserted any right
of ownership thereon
FACTS:
In 1918, spouses Pedro Bahan and Dominga Exsaure
acquired a 1.8340 hectares parcel of coconut land. Said
property was inherited in 1965 by private respondents, as
successors-in-interest.
In 1960, petitioner Avila bought a 4,371 square
meter parcel of land which is part of the subject property
inherited by the Bahans from their predecessor, under a
Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land.
On November 3, 1971, the heirs of Pedro Bahan filed
Free Patent Application for a lot which has a total area of
6.9027 hectares in its entirety. Sometime later, private
Habawel-Vega
respondent Julito Bahan and company gathered coconuts
from the land purchased by petitioner Magdalena Avila.
They filed an action for quieting of title and damages
against the Avilas. In their answer, the petitioners Avilas
raised the defense of having purchased the land from a
certain Luis Cabalan and from then on has been in open,
continuous, public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of
the same.
The Avilas filed a motion for a preliminary writ of
injunction praying that the Bahans be enjoined and ordered
to refrain and desist from gathering or continue harvesting
the fruits on the land in controversy until the termination of
the case.
In the meantime, the Bahans' application for free
patent was approved and the free patent was issued , and
on the same date an Original certificate of title was issued in
the name of the Heirs of Pedro Bahan, represented by Julito
Bahan.
ISSUE:
W/N the subsequent approval of the application for
free patent for 6.9027 hectares in favor of the Bahans (the
land which rightfully pertains to the Avilas being embraced
and included therein), the issuance of free patent and
original certificate of title in favor of the Bahans during the
pendency of the case for quieting of title is proper
RULING:
No.
The free patent that was issued to the Bahans is
erroneous as it embraced and comprised in portions thereof
lands which belong to the Avilas. The subsequent
registration of the portion of land belonging to the Avilas by
the Bahans could not make the latter owners thereof.
A cadastral court has no authority to award a
property in favor of persons who have not put in any claims
to it and have never asserted any right of ownership
thereon, and the certificate of title issued under the
circumstances to such persons would be declared null and
void subject to the right of innocent purchasers for value.
While land registration is a proceeding in rem and
binds the whole world, the simple possession of a certificate
of title under the Torrens Systems does not necessarily make
the holder a true owner of all the property described
therein. If a person obtains a title under the Torrens
Habawel-Vega
system, which includes by mistake or oversight land
which can no longer be registered under the system,
he does not, by virtue of the said certificate alone,
become the owner of the lands illegally included.
Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of
acquiring ownership but is merely evidence of such title
over a particular property. It does not give the holder any
better right than what he actually has, especially if the
registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that it is as if
no registration was made at all.